University Funding

Should universities accept funding from the tobacco industry? The question has arisen in England, where the University of Nottingham has accepted £3.8 - about $AUD10 million - from British American Tobacco, and one of the university's professors has resigned from his position.

Transcript

Wendy Barnaby: Until a couple of weeks ago Dr Richard Smith was the Editor of the British Medical Journal and Professor of Medical Journalism at the University of Nottingham. He's no longer at the university.

Dr Richard Smith: I resigned because the University of Nottingham has taken 3.8 million pounds from British American Tobacco to help pay for a Centre for Corporate Responsibility in the Business School, which I think is ludicrous because no industry, I would argue, has been anything like as unethical as the tobacco industry. It killed a hundred million people in the 20th Century and it's on course now to kill 1 billion in the 21st Century, so I think to take money from such companies is to degrade the university.

Philip Dalling: I think very much that we continue to be respectable in both academic and ethical terms.

Wendy Barnaby: Phillip Dalling, Head of Public Affairs at Nottingham.

Philip Dalling: The money is available. Our view is that we should accept it and put it to good use. Corporate social responsibility is a growing subject. We already have a certain amount of expertise within our Business School. We intend to appoint a Professorial Director and also offer scholarships for students from abroad. So we feel that the money is available, it is coming from a legitimate source, albeit a controversial one, and we feel that the thing to do is to take it and make it work for us.

Wendy Barnaby: The Director General of the Cancer Research Campaign, Professor Gordon McVie is scathing in his assessment of what Nottingham's done.

Gordon McVie: The reason the tobacco company wants to get into Nottingham University was that they could then win respectability and they could claim to be in clean company and they could use that as part of their marketing strategy. For instance, in developing countries to have their products marketed without any restraints or advertising bans. Sweeteners might be, why don't you send your top students to come to Nottingham University, we've got a wonderful business school there and of course we'll pay for the scholarships. This is dirty dealing, big time.

Wendy Barnaby: Gordon McVie feels particularly strongly because the Cancer Research Campaign, the CRC, has spearheaded attempts to stop universities accepting tobacco money. Cambridge University accepted a donation from that source several years ago and this prompted McVie to approach the universities and suggest setting up guide lines for them to follow if the situation should arise again.

The universities agreed and even wrote some of the guidelines. Nottingham's now maintaining that it has stuck to these guidelines in accepting the money.

Philip Dalling: The key factor, I think, were the guidelines that have been drawn up by what used to be the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and is now Universities UK and the Cancer Research Campaign. And the corner stone of those guidelines is the fact that money from the tobacco industry cannot be used for research in an area that's also being funded by the Cancer Research Campaign.

Now we consulted the Cancer Research Campaign, we looked at the protocols and decided that yes, we were able to take the money and we're a little bit aggrieved, to say the least, that the Cancer Research Campaign subsequently appears to have moved the goal posts.

Gordon McVie: It may not be in breach of the Campaign bit of the process but in terms of the CVCP bit of the protocol, I think that there's every evidence that the tobacco companies are getting lots of media coverage as a result of their donation to the university.

Wendy Barnaby: Gordon McVie. The guidelines have two authors, his organisation, the Cancer Research Campaign and the University body which used to be known as the CVCP.

Gordon McVie: The CVCP quite clearly state that the universities of the UK should not put themselves in such a compromised position with regard to the tobacco companies that their good name and their goodwill can be used for purposes of marketing. The University of Nottingham, in this instance, felt that they had a cast iron agreement with the tobacco companies of which we have not seen a sight and of course this would not be exploitable, and the very fact that three of four months later we're still talking about it and getting prime time air time is adequate evidence that indeed the tobacco companies are getting real miles for their investment, and lots of exposure and it's exactly playing into their hands. So, well done Nottingham.

Wendy Barnaby: Nottingham says that it's consulted with the Cancer Research Campaign before it ever decided to take the money.

Gordon McVie: The university's leader came to consult with me for an off-the-record discussion which was understood to be kept very private and I have respected that. Two of three months before the announcement I made it quite clear at that time that the campaign bitterly opposed this kind of activity and the position that Nottingham University were putting themselves in. I sent endless bits of evidence of the way that the tobacco industry was exploiting this, exactly this kind of cosy relationship with respectable academia as part of their marketing sponsorship strategy and we awaited a confirmation of the position.

I think I was quite honestly, rather naïve and I genuinely thought that this was part of the consultation process.

Wendy Barnaby: But Nottingham accepted the cash. Richard Smith raised the question of whether the university should return it in an effort to get a debate going about the issue. He used the British Medical Journal to publicise it and asked BMJ readers to vote on the journal's website on whether the university should return the money, and if it didn't whether he should resign.

Richard Smith: Having this vote on our website as to whether I should resign was a stunt to try and prompt this debate and it's gone pretty well. I must say it never occurred to me that readers of the BMJ would say I shouldn't resign, and in the end the vote was more equal than I expected. It was 85% of people - we had about 1100 people vote - said Nottingham should give the money back but only 54% said that I should resign if they didn't. And it's the old argument about, is it better to stay inside and argue your case or be outside. And I think that is a serious argument but I'm lucky I suppose in that, as Editor of the BMJ I have a public platform in which we can advance views about the relationship between universities and the tobacco industry.

Wendy Barnaby: Nottingham has no intention of returning the money. Before the affair the CRC gave it about 1.6 million pounds but now it's redirecting 1.5million which would have gone to new research facilities there, to Newcastle instead. One of Nottingham's star cancer researchers, supported by the CRC to work on anti cancer drugs has resigned and is taking his team and its money to London. And Nottingham student of the year refused to accept his award because of the affair. But Phillip Dalling is unrepentant.

Philip Dalling: People have expressed opinions. We respect those opinions. I think we're saying that the Cancer Research Campaign should acknowledge that we have acted within its guidelines, and after all what are the guidelines for? Universities UK has said that it accepts that the university has acted within the guidelines - they are the co-signatory to the protocol. So, we're asking for acceptance of that fact and also respect for our decision, which again was not taken lightly.

Wendy Barnaby: There's no chance that the CRC will endorse the university's action but Gordon McVie wants the guidelines written more clearly so that in future they can't be quoted to support opposing opinions.

Gordon McVie: I think it's extremely important to clarify the guidelines if they're not clear enough and in any case the CVCP has moved on and is now a new institution with a new name, and also the Cancer Research Campaign is in merger talks with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the other major funder of cancer research in the U, so that makes a lot of sense.

Another good reason for our revisiting the code of practice is that I have been conducting with my staff, a further consultation exercise with the volunteers and supporters, thousands of them around the country, who actually raised the money for the Cancer Research Campaign and you know, it will not surprise you to know that they disapprove vigorously of Nottingham University's decision. Universities after all are public institutions paid for by tax payer's money and I think that there's very clear evidence, certainly from those tax payers who also work for the Cancer Research Campaign, that they disapprove of the position they took.And I am depressed for drug discovery, which is one of the main planks of the Cancer Research Campaign's strategy, that what seemed to be an extremely promising science initiative has been delayed by a political discussion which really shouldn't have needed to take place at all.